Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Middle Way between faith and skepticism.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
I do not think that faith in and of itself is a negative thing, I see it more as a motivating factor; but I do think that faith without reason can be ... Continue reading
0
Comments
We have discussed 'faith' a number of times here and these discussions and disagreements have led me to similar conclusions as yourself. As I have said before, it is a shame that a part (and, probably a small but vocal part) of the Christianities has hi-jacked the word and transformed it into a robotic, 'corpse-like' rejection of analytical thought. That, to me, is not faith but is a doctrine-dogma poison.
Surprising as it may be to many, the Christian gospels do not demand this sort of brain-dead lock-step. Rather they are more along the lines that you outline. "Here," they say, "is one who is worthy to be heard and here are the reasons." That many of those reasons are culture-specific presents a problem to some. In my own case, I have little difficulty with them; they seem peripheral.
As you say - and I believe it to be the rock on which a new life is built - the first step is the recognition of dukkha or, as the Twelve Step programme puts it, that our life is out of control. Both the Buddha and the Christ seem to me to say that there is a way out. Like a guide in the rain forest, they say, "I am worthy of trust. Follow me." Only if we realise that we are lost among the trees will we bother to listen and to follow.
I would add that I do not think that this soret of faith is reserved to the 'spiritual' realm. I put great faith in my cardio-thoracic surgeon and not only because he stood over me with a sharp knife in his hand. I put faith in the statins that I take because I have watched my cholesterol come down.
Test the teacher and the teaching, certainly, but don't do it so long that you die before deciding to trust yourself to them.*
*P.S. Ignatius of Loyola has an interesting passage in the Annotations on his Spiritual Exercises on this sort of person.
The Torah or Old Testament is just a precusory story of the misadventures of a people seeking God in the wilderness.
Then in the fullness of time comes this Jesus and his merry band of followers.
Here's where the two paths come into play. Here you have this Jesus the brightest kid on the block, realizes he's God's son. He say's everyone else is too. Thus the OUR FATHER. Problem is he freaks out the local tribe in charge and ends up getting himself killed cause he's out slapping everybody in the face with his revelations. After his death his followers take up the cause in his nmae and in the end are all killed. Except one, John the one who stays home and out of the fray and spins poems whith his wisdom, and thus to him is the new Jerusalem revealed.
Or am I just wack?
First of all, Iawa, I think we are misreading the Tanakh (Old Testament) if we see it as some sort of 'precursor' narrative or even as historical fact (whatever that may be). As the long history of Judaism proves, it is a collection of texts which stands on its own. The early Christian 'heretic' Marcion wanted to ditch most of it and things may have been better if the church had gone along with his idea. It is, however, a common aspect of religions that they all appear to pretend to a long pre-history. It gives them respectability. Even Judaism does the same, connecting the Mosaic revolution with the Abrahamic legends and, ultimately, with "In the beginning". Christianity imported the whole shebang (plus a few apocryphal texts) and has subsequently ignored the two millennia of Jewish theological development.
As for John, he didn't stay at home. That task was left to James the Just, Jesus's brother and the family. They remained in and around Jerusalem, leading a particularly Jewish church. John, legend tells us, went to live in Ephesus where he looked after Mary the mother of Jesus. He was a prisoner on Patmos, working in the mines there. That is where (again according to legend) he received the visions that became the Book of Revelation. His grave can still be seen in Ephesus, although I cannot find my photo of it: it is a plain slab of stone.
The stories of most of the others of the disciples have disappeared because the Petrine legend was given primacy by Rome - even if there is genuine doubt that Peter ever went there. We have, however, strong evidence that Thomas Didymus travelled as far as Southern India where he founded a church that still exists and where he is buried.
As for what Jesus actually believed about himself and his special relationship with the divine principle that he called Father (not, you notice, 'Adonai' or 'Adoshem' and certainly not 'Yahweh'), we have no real idea. That he maintained that a personal relationship with this Father was a way of liberation seems to be central. Extrapolation of the Pauline, Hellenistic vision of Jesus as divine arose later and fitted well with the Roman need to distance people from their intimate connection with their own "Christ-nature".
As I studied the gospels, including that attributed to Thomas, I realised that they contain pointers to a simpler yet more personal practice than the churches preach. Above all, they teach the abandonment of any traditional idea of 'self' (ahamkara), the transitory nature of 'the world', the reality of suffering and the promise that it, too, passes if we follow a way of meditation and prayer. They also teach that each being contains "that of God" which could incarnate in the practitioner, bringing benefit (or 'salvation') to all beings.
Is it surprising that Buddhism called me so strongly?
If we are too open-minded, we will believe anything. If we are too skeptical, we will believe nothing.
Between these two poles is a middle way.